By TODD HORNE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR
The East Baton Rouge Metro Council faces a June 24 decision on whether to sign or again defer a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement that would create a 25-year public-finance structure for the Bayou Fountain Economic Development District, a sports-tourism district near LSU whose proposed project list expressly includes improvements tied to Elite Training Academy.
But before the Council acts, it must confront a land-control problem: the Duplantier family says it owns approximately 175 acres inside BFEDD — roughly 57% of the district’s total land mass — and never consented to having its property included.
That makes the June 24 meeting more than a routine local-government vote.
It is now a test of whether Metro Council members are willing to move forward with a public taxing and development agreement after the district’s majority landowner says it was not meaningfully notified, never agreed to participate and wants its land removed immediately.
The proposed CEA would allow the City-Parish and BFEDD to collect and use new district taxes and sales-tax growth generated inside the district to support economic development projects over a term running through Dec. 31, 2051. Under the agreement, future City-Parish sales-tax growth above a certified baseline would be pledged back to the district on a sliding scale: 100% for 2026, 75% from 2027 through 2031, 50% from 2032 through 2041, and 25% from 2041 through 2051.
The agreement also establishes a dedicated fund, allows district tax revenue to be used for project costs, includes a construction rebate mechanism and contemplates projects involving sports facilities, parking, utilities, roadways, private-property improvements, tourism marketing, signage, lighting, beautification, drainage and redevelopment.
That is real public-finance machinery.
The question now is whether the Council should activate it before the land-control dispute is resolved.
The Metro Council approved creation of the Bayou Fountain EDD on April 22 by a unanimous 12-0 vote. The ordinance created the district, defined its boundaries, designated its governing authority and acknowledged the district’s authority to levy new sales and use taxes and hotel occupancy taxes within its boundaries.
Public notices later said the BFEDD Board of Commissioners intended to meet May 21 at 5414 Burbank Drive — the address of Elite Training Academy — to take action on levying a 2% sales and use tax beginning July 1.
The district’s public purpose is sports tourism. Its financial structure is built around using taxes generated inside the district to support development inside the district.
But the documents reviewed by Tiger Rag show BFEDD is not merely a generic sports-tourism district near Elite.
It is an Elite-centered public-finance proposal.
The CEA’s project list specifically identifies expansions at “premier existing facilities such as the Elite Training Academy campus” among the district’s highest-priority Tier I projects. Those projects include design, construction, expansion and improvement of major sports, recreation and tourism facilities, including indoor and outdoor athletic facilities, championship courts, tournament fields, spectator seating and supporting infrastructure.
The proposed CEA also includes a sports feasibility study prepared by Synergy Sports Global for Elite Training Academy. The study says Synergy was engaged in September 2025 by Greg Stringfellow, managing partner of Elite Training Academy, to prepare a feasibility study, market summary, programming recommendation and economic-impact analysis for a new multi-sport complex in Baton Rouge.
The study identified one Baton Rouge site for the proposed complex: an adjacent lot to Elite Training Academy.
It also identified a major problem.
Under site considerations, the study listed “land acquisition costs” as a con. Elsewhere, it said the land would need to be acquired and recommended that the ownership group secure the proposed land under a letter of intent, pending project approval and funding, to show elected officials and City-Parish staff their commitment to the project.
That recommendation now sits at the center of the dispute.
The feasibility study supporting the CEA acknowledged that land needed to be acquired. The Duplantier family now says it owns the majority of the land inside the district and never consented to having its property included.
In a May 26 letter hand-delivered to Mayor-President Sid Edwards and members of the Metro Council, Rebel Caplinger, Lisa Duplantier and Kristin Beal wrote that they represent 14 Duplantier family members who own approximately 175 acres within the BFEDD boundaries.
The family described the land as six-generation family property with active producing oil and gas wells, surface value and mineral value. The letter said the property is not blighted land by any measure.
The family said it was never notified by the district’s organizer, by District 12 Councilwoman Jennifer Racca, whose district encompasses the property, or by the City-Parish “in any meaningful way.”
“For the majority landowners of a newly formed district — we own approximately 57% of the total acreage within the BFEDD — this is a deeply troubling failure of the process,” the letter states.
The letter identifies Stringfellow, owner of 820 Development Group LLC and president of Elite Training Academy, as the person who initiated BFEDD. It also identifies W. Carlos Spaht, owner of Elite Landowning Company LLC, as a party the family says stands to benefit directly from BFEDD and any development of the family’s land.
The family further alleged that its property was publicly depicted and promoted as part of BFEDD-related development plans without its knowledge, consent or any agreement in place.
The family’s position is now explicit. It says it has no interest in doing business with Stringfellow or Elite Training Academy.
“Any assumption that this Economic Development District or the pressure it creates will bring us to the table is mistaken,” the family wrote.
That statement changes the June 24 vote.
If the Duplantier family’s numbers are correct, the Council must decide whether to move forward with a CEA for a district whose majority landowner says the district was formed around land the project proponents do not control.
The family asked the Metro Council to defer or table the CEA vote pending a full and independent review of the district’s formation, boundaries and intended purpose. It also asked that its 175-acre tract be removed from BFEDD immediately and entirely.
The family also asked the Council to ensure that no blight designation, expropriation proceeding or other adverse action is initiated against its property.
That request is significant. It shows the family does not view BFEDD as a harmless planning boundary. It views the district as potential leverage over its property rights and future negotiating position.
The CEA’s own language reinforces why the family is concerned.
The agreement’s project list includes more than sports fields and courts. Tier II projects include the purchase, design, renovation and construction of land, parking lots, buildings and other private properties within the district to spur redevelopment, beautification and reinvestment, with priority given to properties along Burbank Drive and Nicholson Drive.
The CEA also contemplates matching grants to private entities for business, commercial or building facade improvements, signage, lighting and exterior beautification.
In other words, the CEA would not merely support public infrastructure in the abstract. It would create a long-term mechanism through which district revenue could help fund improvements connected to private properties and private entities inside BFEDD.
The agreement is candid about that public-private structure. It states that economic development is a legitimate concern of the City-Parish because it serves the public interest, but is “not purely and solely a public purpose,” because successful economic development serves private business and industry as much as the public interest.
That may be legally acceptable. But it makes public scrutiny essential.
The CEA also shows that the district already contains meaningful taxable activity. The annual sales-tax baseline inside BFEDD is certified at $3,012,786.60, with a monthly baseline of $251,065.55. That means BFEDD is not simply a future development concept on empty land. Existing taxable business activity already sits inside its boundaries.
The agreement also says the City-Parish will establish an initial list of all businesses located in the district, to be verified by BFEDD. The district would then be responsible for informing the tax collector of any businesses that should be added to or removed from the tax base before the monthly tax increment is calculated.
That gives the district a role in verifying the business base that feeds its own financing structure.
The boundary work also deserves attention.
The legal description attached to the CEA says the boundary description was based on compiled records obtained from the East Baton Rouge Tax Assessor map and available online records from the East Baton Rouge Clerk of Court. It also states that the description was not prepared with the benefit of an on-the-ground survey and should not be construed as one.
For a district carrying taxing authority and built around land whose majority owner says it did not consent, that caveat is not minor.
The district’s board structure is another unanswered issue.
The CEA says BFEDD would be governed by a board of commissioners with no fewer than three and no more than seven members. Two commissioners would be appointed by the Metro Council member representing District 12. The remaining members would be selected according to the board’s bylaws.
The public should know who those board members are, who selects them, whether they have ties to Elite, Stringfellow, Spaht, landowners or other private beneficiaries, and whether the majority landowner has any representation in the district’s governance.
Those answers matter before the CEA is signed, not after.
There is also an LSU-interest angle, though it must be handled carefully.
Elite Training Academy is not an anonymous private developer. Ochsner Health’s announcement of the Elite Training Complex identified former LSU football stars Joe Burrow, Tyrann Mathieu, Clyde Edwards-Helaire and Jamal Adams as part of Elite’s ownership team. The same announcement also identified prominent Louisiana business figures as part of the ownership team, including Raising Cane’s founder Todd Graves and former LSU offensive lineman and Bollinger Shipyards chairman Ben “Bo” Bordelon, along with Stringfellow, Carlos Spaht and others.
There is no public document reviewed by Tiger Rag showing Burrow, Mathieu, Edwards-Helaire, Adams, Graves or Bordelon had any role in forming BFEDD, drawing its boundaries, negotiating the CEA or addressing the Duplantier land issue. That distinction is important.
Their public connection to Elite, however, makes the district more newsworthy for an LSU audience and underscores the need to clearly explain how Elite, BFEDD and the proposed public-finance structure are connected.
BFEDD also sits in the broader Burbank/Nicholson corridor near LSU, where the university’s planned new arena and related development are expected to reshape traffic, land use, sports tourism, hospitality and private investment. BFEDD is not the LSU Economic Development District, and available records reviewed by Tiger Rag do not establish that BFEDD is part of LSU’s arena financing plan.
But geographically and economically, BFEDD appears positioned to benefit from the same south-LSU growth corridor.
That context makes the Council’s June 24 decision more important.
Signing the CEA would move BFEDD from a district created on paper into a public-finance vehicle with a 25-year term, new district taxes, pledged sales-tax increments, construction rebates and a project list that expressly includes Elite Training Academy’s campus.
Deferring the CEA would give the Council time to answer basic questions about land ownership, notice, consent, board control, private beneficiaries, business taxation and whether the district can function if the Duplantier property is removed.
Those questions are straightforward:
Who drew the BFEDD boundaries?
Who verified land ownership?
Did the Metro Council know the Duplantier family claimed to own 57% of the district before voting unanimously to create it?
Did BFEDD organizers have a purchase agreement, option agreement, lease, letter of intent or development agreement covering the Duplantier land?
If not, why was the district created around land the project proponents did not control?
Can BFEDD remain viable without the Duplantier acreage?
Who sits on the BFEDD board?
Who selected the members not appointed by the District 12 council member?
What existing businesses are inside the district’s tax base?
Which private entities could receive district-funded improvements, reimbursements or grants?
And why did the CEA move forward when the study attached to it recommended securing the proposed land under a letter of intent before presenting the project as viable to elected officials and City-Parish staff?
Economic development districts can be legitimate tools. They can support infrastructure, visitors, jobs and private investment.
But when public taxing power is created around private land without the consent of the people who say they own most of it, the public deserves answers before the financing agreement is signed.
The June 24 choice before the Metro Council is therefore simple.
It can sign the CEA and move forward with a district whose majority landowner says it was never asked to participate.
Or it can defer the agreement until the public knows who owns the land, who controls the district, who benefits from the taxes and whether the project is viable without the Duplantier property.
That is the issue before the Metro Council now.
Be the first to comment